TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a copy of which is exhibit PI. We are concerned with the observations in paragraph 12 of exhibit PI. Therein, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dealt with the petitioner's claim for non-liability for tax under section 5A of certain purchases. According to the petitioner, the goods in question had been subjected to tax earlier and therefore, the purchases by him were not liable to levy under section 5A. But the petitioner had not substantiated his claim with any supporting material. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was inclined to grant him a further opportunity to produce evidence to establish that the goods had already suffered tax at the hands of his sellers. It was, therefore, observed in paragraph 12 that exemption under "single ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assistant Commissioner rejected them as not maintainable by his order, exhibit P7. He stated that there was no provision in the Act for an appeal against "the modified " order of assessment. Petitioner challenges exhibit P2 (in so far as it relates to the years 1981-82 and 1982-83) and exhibit P7. I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 5.. Section 34 of the Act provides for an appeal against any order of assessment passed under section 17 of the Act. There is no limitation or restriction therein, that a revised or modified order of assessment cannot be subject to challenge. An appeal against such an order is maintainable, though the grounds available, or the relief, if any, liable to be granted, in the appeal may b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enough to challenge the orders of revised assessment in appeal. That is what the petitioner did in this case. It could not be said that when noncompliance with the appellate order is alleged and the assessee has been denied a benefit to which he was entitled in law, the appellate authority should fold its hands and disclaim jurisdiction, purportedly under section 34 of the Act. He was not justified in taking the view he did in exhibit P7. The finding in exhibit P7 that the revised order exhibit P2 was not appealable is contrary to the provisions of the Act. The rejection of the petitioner's appeals at the threshold as not maintainable was not legal and was an abdication of his jurisdiction by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Exhibit P7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
